Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Community Values and the Gas Tax

By

While this debate is really about what kind of government we want and how should we pay for it most of the press including the Globe only seem to cover the anti gas tax outrage, which usually boils down to “I'm not ready to support the roads and bridges my family and community depend on”. And they express outrage by organizing 25, count them 25, folk to stand in front of the state house asking taxicabs to honk against a gas tax increase. (duh)

Reading that article this morning prompted me to mutter “The Governor and Secretary Aloisi are playing their roles pretty well so far, trying to energize some public support, and where is it?” ”

This is the answer I got from my good friend ” Where are the supporters of the Governor's plan? I'll tell you where they are. Diddling around on the sidelines while our infrastructure crumbles.” Yuk.

crossposted in ONE Massachusetts 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Curtatone is 100% right.  The legislature may be nervous and may not accept the plan in full, but something will happen.  The Governor has finally forced the issue to the front of the agenda and thank God for that.  

  2. Europeans pay more in taxes than Americans but
    They get
    transportation-real systems
    education
    health care
    FAR MORE TIME OFF
    Far from perfect true an we call them socialists.

    <

    p>We wasted far too much on the War of Terror and trillions for spy vs spy games.
    Exodus from Mass plans are again in full swing.

  3. So far both President Obama and the Gov have made tough choice by raising taxes. That is all they are doing, raising taxes, raising fees and cutting tax deductions. They haven’t many any tough choices. There aren’t thousands of state jobs being cut or tens of thousands of jobs being cut at the Federal level. It’s business as usual. “My staff will be reviewing the budget, line by line… ” Bullshit. Same with the Gov. They both have picked up the line “I get it” like they are connecting with us peeps.

    <

    p>And now we get the “Gas tax is the only way…”. More bullshit.

    <

    p>The way to tell if a politician is lying… their mouths are moving… and these 2 mouths haven’t stopped flapping.

    • [A]ll they are doing, raising taxes, raising fees and cutting tax deductions.

      Am I to conclude you too are a politician? How are we to account for this brazen, convenient, made-for-talk-radio falsehood?

        • Really?  How does it do this, by giving the hacks better pensions so they can buy more Entenmannn’s at the Stop & Shop?  By giving state police more detail overtime so they can sit in their cruisers and quaff Dunkin’ Donuts coffee?  By giving the General Court more money to spend on obsolete computer software supplied by a solon’s brother-in-law’s firm after a “nationwide search” for a good contractor?  By giving the state more money to build more courthouses and schools that tenants can’t even occupy because the buildings were built so shoddily they’re now considered “sick?”  By giving the state even more money to mis-manage more projects like the Big Dig?  

          <

          p>The wide-eyed naivite of your statement leaves a rational-thinking person absolutely breathless.  The level of corruption of the Massachusetts state government is second, only, perhaps to that of the state of Illinois.  To believe otherwise is to ignore the obvious willfully.

          <

          p>What drives this economy . . . what creates wealth, what creates jobs, what drives progress through innovation is free enterprise—chiefly small- to medium-sized business.  Confiscating money out of the hands of its rightful owners (i.e., the individual) is exactly the wrong way to go about righting the economic ship.

          <

          p>Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell:

          <

          p>http://www.google.com/books?id…

          • on roads filled with potholes because maintenance is underfunded.

            <

            p>P.S. Louisiana called — they’re insulted that you ignored their corruptibility prowess.

            • it’s because the government is pissing away the money that should be used for maintenance doing things that aren’t vital to providing for the state infrastructure.

              <

              p>How do the liberal progressives around here fix a leaky pipe . . . by blasting even more water through it to see if that’ll somehow fix the problem miraculously?  

              • we don’t do it by constantly claiming that we’ve got too many plumbers under contract and demand that we cut 10% of them.  Every year.  Without looking at the budget.  Then, when we don’t have enough plumbers, blame funding in other departments.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>You’ve got to do better than blindly beating the “government waste” drum.  It just doesn’t play a tune around here in reality.

                • There’s nothing blind about it, friend.  Just about every day, it seems, we learn about a scandal involving government and waste.  I really don’t understand how, as a taxpayer, you can just shrug your shoulders at that and say “so what?”

                  <

                  p>Especially when the same government demands even more of your hard-earned money.

                  <

                  p>Why do you have such faith in government?

                • … I heard every day to our daily lives, we’d have to conclude that the average homeowner should be living in terrified stupor that his or her house will burn down tonight.  

                • Refer to specific waste, that’s great.  Let’s get at it and decide if it’s good public value for the cost or not.

                  <

                  p>But, to beat the “waste drum” without specifics is blind.  It’s like me screaming “a plane is gonna crash!” until one does and using it to prove I was right.

            • Louisiana. Of course they do have to report the amount and the contributor. Some fussy campaign finance reform folk had some “trust issues” with those regulations and were trying to do something about it. Does anybody know if they succeeded?

        • I’ve heard references to this fiasco quite a bit and always attributed to conservatives. Who questioned Paulson on this bill… House majority Democrats and Senate majority Democrats. Who voted for this bill… the Democratically controlled House and the Democratically Senate (including Sen Obama) passed the bill. Why weren’t these questions and concerns brought up at that time? Do these people even read the bills they are signing anymore? I think this is a bullshit reference as are so many other ones. They sound as pathetic as some of these home owners complaining they “didn’t know” their mortgage rate could readjust (that’s a AR in Adjustable Rate Mortgage) but at least these politicians are lawyers and have more lawyers on their staffs so they have no excuse for not reading bills.

          <

          p>Another bullshit line was I heard Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer taking about some of the economic problems we have “inherited”. Inherited from whom, yourself. Democrats have controlled both houses for the last 2 years so if they are inheriting anything today or this year it’s from the Congress they have controlled for 2 years!

      • Even my brazen convenient, made-for-talk-radio falsehood (IYO) caused a spirited debate between 2 people. However it does bring up an interesting point. My broad stroke government waste argument always gets debunked as being non-specific. I would argue that the further you define this waste the more the opponents move to why those specific things are not “waste”. So being specific doesn’t “always” solve the issue. People have cognitive dissonance and will not change their minds.

        <

        p>Cutting government jobs… Maybe we can call Paul Krugman, (if he’s busy being beatified before the canonization is complete) and ask him how much of a multiplier difference there is between a $1 fixing a bridge, a $1 helping a small business and a $1 for paying a toll-taker (or fill in your favorite government useless overpaid job title)?

  4. I have been thinking for days that an increase in the gas tax is preferable to an increase in the Mass Pike tolls.  So after I read your post, I emailed my state rep. & state senator to tell them that!  Thanks for the reminder.

    • around on the sidelines about anything we care about in this world.

      <

      p>And it’s much easier (and more effective by the way) when we start our conversation about a complicated and complex policy* with a value statement like “I know in our surburban community we all depend on good roads and safe bridges to get ourselves to work,our kids to school and our groceries to the local stores. I wish we had more access to on time public transportation here and I wish the state hadn’t slowed down the work on the highway, so I’m gonna keep after you to  help figure that out after we take care of big problems that have been unattended for so long. Time to bite the bullet for the good of the next generation.”  

      <

      p>*Charlie, Details are important. And it’s not the devil but God that’s in the details, and that’s why we have to take care. Sometimes she’s spot on and sometimes she’s just testing to see if we’re paying attention.  

  5. I would be interested in hearing from anyone in western Mass who supports the gas tax increase and the Governor’s plan to bring sense to the management of our transportation network (and create efficiencies and cost-savings along the way, though that’s a side benefit, not the point of coordinated planning).

    <

    p>There is a hearing scheduled next Wednesday at 4 PM in Springfield, and I’d love to pack the room with people who will speak up like citizens and not like the whiners who seem to be able to only think that they are somehow entitled to special treatment just because they pay taxes.

    <

    p>Judy, your list of benefits that we all receive is very impressive, and I’m sure we can all add other services that we have taken advantage of (and for granted?) or may need someday.

    <

    p>Oh, I forgot to say. I support the gas tax hike and the Governor’s reorg plan. I guess you couldn’t tell, eh?

  6. I totally agree that major action is needed in the area of transportation in this state, I’m just not sure the governor’s plan is the best solution.  I was expecting his plan to really be a permanent or long-term solution to this problem.  While the reform and restructuring aspect is surely a long-term improvement, the raising of the gas tax is really just another stop-gap measure in some ways.  

    <

    p>It will prevent MBTA fares and Turnpike tolls from increasing RIGHT NOW – it just means the Pike will be able to wait 3-4 years before raising the tolls again, following the schedule they set several years ago to pay the debt.  So, in say 4 years, the tolls will go up AND drivers will be paying the increased gas tax, which will be higher by then since it is indexed to the CPI – maybe 25 cent/gal. The gov says there is no way the public will accept an increased gas tax AND a toll increase – and he’s right, but really that’s what they are getting with his plan, they’ll just have to wait a few years to see it realized.  I think we can do better than that.

    <

    p>And while I understand the need for new revenue to combat this mountain of debt and keep the MTA bonds from turning to junk, I feel like there are other, more creative options to do so besides just slapping on a gas tax.  Sure, increased gas prices make consumers more conscious of their driving habits and less likely to buy gas-guzzlers they do not need, but in this economy I’m concerned for the low-income people who drive far to work and will be pinched by this tax.  The gas tax is like the sales tax, it’s a use-based tax.  I’d prefer something more progressive, though I know touching the income tax would be just as politically unpopular, if not more so.  I’m no budget expert but I feel like there must be more creative ways to raise revenue that will not have as much impact on the general population and especially those who are really hurting in this economy.  And once the gas tax goes on, I doubt it will ever go away or decrease significantly, even if the transportation problem is solved and the Big Dig and MBTA debt is retired.

    <

    p>I’m glad this discussion has begun, unfortunately I wish this process had started last session, as now we are facing a short timeline to get something passed before the bonds go into crisis mode and the Pike tolls take effect in a few weeks. Here’s hoping the legislature takes this opening salvo from the gov, gets creative, and punches out a good, comprehensive solution…

    • that the federal government is also considering raising the Federal gas tax by $0.10 to $0.284?  

      <

      p>So Patrick wants to jack us up for an additional $0.19, and the Feds are looking into jacking us up for an additional dime.  Government already makes more profit on a gallon of gas than Big Oil, now they’re thinking about upping their percentage even more.  Not by DOING anything, mind you, except for sticking a gun in our collective faces.

      <

      p>Oh, and the feds are also thinking about a vehicle v-chip plan as well.

      <

      p>So be careful what you ask for here in Massachusetts, ladies and gentlemen.  The pain you wish to inflict on yourselves oh so nobly only stands to be compounded by the federal government.

      <

      p>Source:  “Commission Urges Taxing Drivers More,” Wall Street Journal, 26 February 2009, p. A3.

        • What’s a surplus?

          <

          p>(PS:  If you don’t spend any capital whatsoever to produce, manufacture, distribute, market, or maintain “product X,” but you still collect money for every portion of product X sold, you make a profit on it.  PoliSci 101 dogma be damned.)

          <

          p>

          • Non-profit organizations finish years with a surplus all the time.  It isn’t profit because it isn’t removed from the organization.  Instead, it’s either invested directly in the organization (more capital) or saved for future years (with the interest in the savings becoming additional revenue).

            <

            p>You’re using the wrong word.  Government is not a business.

            • It’s a government.  A government that operates at a surplus is a government that has collected too much in taxes and fees from its citizens.  Government should always run a deficit—albeit as small a deficit as possible.

  7. Here’s the reality that the GOP, Boston Herald, and other anti-tax groups don’t want to talk about.

    <

    p>Let’s say that the Beacon Hill Democrats all went on vacation and left the GOP in charge to write and pass transportation reform legislation. The GOPers take all the popular steps: firing tolltakers, busting up the MBTA employees union, and everything else recommended within the Mass. Transportation Commission Financing report.

    <

    p>Guess what. They would still need to pass a gas tax to pay for all the debt and all the roads and bridges that need repair. Maybe it would instead only be 8 or 10 cents. But they would have to raise the gas tax. And the GOP knows this. They may not say so publicly, but they know it deep down in places they don’t like to talk about.

    <

    p>So it’s BS for them to shape the argument into a straight up “yes or no” on whether the gas tax should be hiked. The debate needs to be about addressing all the reasons that we got to this place (the bloated benefits and perks, the lack of construction oversight, swelling debt, all of that stuff) and what we need to do to fix it.

    <

    p>This conversation should be in the shape of a “Contract with Massachusetts Taxpayers” and it should say, in exchange for raising the gas tax, we will do A, B, C, D, etc.

    <

    p>The Boston Globe (and of course the Boston Herald0 has failed MISERABLY at discussing exactly what reforms are being proposed within the Senate’s and Governor’s reform plans.  

    • we’d at least get the reform that goes along with the tax increase.  And maybe even the promise that the tax increase would be rolled back when the debt was paid.  That is, if we take what you wrote at face value—that regardless, a tax increase is needed.

      <

      p>Oh horrible, horrible fiscal freedom.

      <

      p>How long, exactly, has the General Court been controlled by the Democrat party?

      • And that’s exactly what I wrote. That the gax tax NEEDS to be accompanied by reforms. But to think that by adopting a few reforms everything will be fine, is just simple-minded.

        <

        p>Reforms will give you between $3-6 billion in savings. Not a small amount. But you still then have to come up with another $10-15 billion to properly fix and maiontain your infrastructure. Where’s that money going to come from?

        <

        p>Don’t forget that the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars (billions in today’s dollars) between the WPA and the Eisenhower Highway system building up the region’s infrastruture. Well guess what: you need to replace it once every 50 years or so.

        <

        p>That time, unfortunately for us, is now.

        • the $10-15 billion figure?  

          <

          p>The adverb “properly” is a loaded one.

          <

          p>If I were sitting behind the “The Buck Stops Here” sign, the first thing I would do is become a bona fide expert on what constitutes “properly,” and what constitutes some slick guys in suits trying to sell me and the Commonwealth taxpayer a bill of goods.

          • You should read the Mass. Transportation Finance Commission report.  Or the Delotte & Touche report. The costs are all outlined in there. Or you can remain uninformed which would allow you to reflexively say that a gas tax hike isn’t needed.

            <

            p>In regarsd to properly, here’s how I would define it: I could fix the hole in my roof with some waxpaper and a piece of plywood, or I could fix it properly. We could patch up some bridges with 2x4s and rubber cement, or we can fix them properly.    

            • line by line, and agree with 100% of the recommendations therein, and believe than unless we implement each and every one of those recommendations as soon as humanly possible, life if the Commonwealth will come to a screeching halt?

              • but that’s pretty weak to stake the claim that “if you don’t agree with 100% of the report, you must agree with my drivel”.

Archives